Dreff's RantLand

Rants and musings of an old web jockey.

11/10/2008

I've been iPwned

This is going to be the first in what I am sure will be a long list of rants about my iPhone. I've resisted the iPhone for quite a while. It's easy for me, I have a long standing disdain for Apple, it's products and the sycophants who relentlessly parade around with their iGear in my face just to prove how cool they are, and by inference how cool the rest of us aren't.

The iPhone is now about 18 months old having been released in April of 2007. Up until recently I had not had a need for this device. I didn't need an always-on connection to my email or the internets and my phone was good enough. My "good enough" phone was a RAZR v3XX. As it happened there were a large number of those that sucked and after 3 returns I ended up with a RAZR2 V9. I was happy with the feature set of my v3XX but I took the upgrade anyway.

Now to me, if it's got the word phone in the name, it had better be a damned good phone. I upgraded to a v3XX because I wanted to have a portable MP3 player as well. So now my phone has two mjor features. Cameras are nice, but are really tertiary to what I needed.

So, now my life has changed and I need to be able to read and write email all the time, evereywhere. So it's time to get a portable internet device, and the iPhone seemed like a good choice. The company paid for it, so expense wasn't an issue.

So far I'm unimpressed by the iPhone. As a phone, it's uncomfortable to use and the call integrity is poor as is the fidelity. As an MP3 player it sucks rocks, and I'll tell you why in a minute. As an internet device it is great. As a complete device, it's got some really rough edges.

I absolutely hate the stupid white adapter cord. I would have thought that Apple could have figured out a way to use USB by now. Why do I need that proprietary plug? Especially when you factor in the shitty battery life, this feature is a net negative. Whatever benefit *I* get from that plug, I can't figure. Motorola had a special fitting for the RAZR2 V9 that added a headset to the mini USB, but they provided a 2" adapter that you could keep on your keychain that would get you back to a mini USB.

The lack of A2DP BlueTooth is a miserable lameness that just sucks ass. This means that I can't use my stereo bluetooth headphones with my iPhone. This is a suprising oversight and missing feature that I would think was a no-brainer. Was it deliberate? I really woldn't put it past Apple to hold off on this so more people are wandering around with those cocky white iPod "oh but with a mic" headsets on all the time. Not me man, none of that "look at me I'm soo cool cuz I buy Apple" bullshit. Keep the stickers too while you're at it.

I'm not a Mac or a PC, I'm a human who happens to run Linux. This obviously means that I get nothing as far as support from Apple. Sweet, they build their great third age on the back of open source and then treat all of us like dirt. Where's my Linux iTunes? Hell where's my FreeBSD iTunes for that matter.

Ok I know that is aking too much, how about just letting me access the stinking memory from a USB cable? Once more Motorola does better by doing less, I could directly access my phone's flash through the USB. Sure it only had 2G of flash after I upgraded (for a whopping $10) but at least I could use it.

$299 on a two year contract with ATT is steep especially because you need the more expensive data plan.

Did I mention the battery life? Brand new phone won't make it 24 hours on a single charge and moderate-light usage.

And I left the stupid cord on my desk so I can't charge it here.

I *really* wanted this to not suck. Apple can fix all of the software issues with patches, but I woder how much of this is just Apple being Apple. They always know best and the fans don't complain.

12/14/2005

The ethics of modding

My co-workers and I got into it a bit today about the ethics of modding. Even though the practice is currently illegal (it dhouldn't be) I still contend that modding anything is perfectly within your rights as a consumer. There are a couple of exceptions, but those are covered by the purchase transaction differently than the subject of our debate: Gaming Consoles.

The specific example is the new XBox 360. Microsoft is selling these babys at a loss right now. Over time they will start turning a profit from the sales of the consoles, but at the moment they plan to make money off of the sales of games. This is an extension of the Gilette model of giving away the razor and selling blades.

Modding (for the uninitiated) is the practice of modifying a game console to do things that the manufacturer did not intend. For example, the original XBox was modded to run Linux. Microsoft, with the help of the DMCA, has made it illegal to purchase the XBox and use it as you choose.

My co-worker's logic is that there is an implied deal made when you purchase the thing which binds you to their contract. Loosley stated this contract is; "we'll sell it cheap as long as you buy games". This business model works because people buy consoles to play games, the box maker gets a royalty for every game made on that box, and they sell *lots* of games.

But I don't belive that it is my responsibility to validate the business model. If I choose to puy a console, I should have the right to use the thing as I choose. It's mine isn't it? The price I paid should have no bearing on what I can do with it. They set the price.

If microsoft loses $400 for every console, they've chosen to lose that money by setting the price below their cost. As a consumer I have no responsibility to buy games. The would use the same amount of money off that console if I chose to use it as a doorstop as they would if I modded it to run Linux.

Why does the manufacturer get any say as to what I do with their product after I have purchased it?

This business practice is rampant. The razor blade companies are one of the oldest examples but they are not alone. Movie theaters don't make money off movie tickets, they make money off of $5 popcorn (cost $.45) and $3.50 cokes (cost $.05), the same is true for amusement parks. Cell phone companies give away phones that used to cost hundreds of dollars because they also sell service.

Anti trust plays an interesting role in here too... Nokia doesn't get to sell cell service and Sprint doesn't get to make phones. It's a lovely relationship.

In the land of warranties and contracts, the seller has some control. That is only because you sign an agreement with your phone that states "you will use our service for a year or you pay for the whole phone". This is a deal that we willingly enter into with our eyes open. Cracking open your game console can void your warranty and if you screw it up, too bad for you. Both totally fine by me.

But I don't see a contract for me to sign when I buy a game console that binds me to buying 10 games within the first 18 months otherwise they charge me $400. If that were the deal, many people would still do it. Barring that contract though, I should have the right to do as I please with the objet I have purchased regardless of the price.